Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Glock Forum' started by djg1965, Sep 27, 2020.
You say maybe not. Can you expand on that?
It seems to me that the videos are quite clear.
Simply stated, the ARX bullets underperformed the others tested.
Has anyone tried the NOVX ammo?
For those who haven’t heard of Novx. I had to look it up.
Okay...I get it now. Well HERE'S a video that sheds a little different light on it. I guess we could keep posting videos that support our side of the argument.
The fact of the matter is the ARX round meets the FBI protocols consistently and more importantly, it does not over penetrate thus minimising collateral damage. That's an important consideration. It does that by design... by rotating 180 degrees and applying the brakes. It creates a consistent wound channel compared to the hollow point because it utilizes hydraulic cavitation and doesn't depend on expansion to create the wound channel.
I think you're missing my point.
The ARX is just another bullet with some 'different' performance characteristics... some of which some shooters may prefer over more traditional bullets.
But, that doesn't make them "the game changer"... just different... and, in some ways, for the worse.
I call it a "game changer" because it embraces new technology rather than continually rearranging existing components. Let's face it, short barrels and heavy lead bullets don't lend themselves to the speed and expansion needed to get the job done. It's a proven fact that hollow points do not expand well at low velocities.. and then factor in heavy clothing and the clogging it causes in the hollow point, it pretty well renders it to the level of ball ammo.
With the ongoing quest of gun manufacturers to deliver high capacites in micro sized concealable guns, somewhere a price is paid. That price is barrel length. We can address that in a couple different ways. We can increase the charge in the cartridge..ie: +p, +p+ or magnum to gain velocity or we reduce bullet weight to achieve the same. By increasing the charge we gain speed, but pay for it with increased recoil. By decreasing bullet weight we gain velocity, but pay for it with minimal bullet performance. That's where ARX and other new technology bullets have become the "game changers". They've made a light weight non expanding copper polymer bullet via injection molding, that takes advantage of the rotational force applied by the rifling, added fluting to the tip of the projectile and launch it with a standard charge. That projectile travels at a high velocity, is virtually barrier blind where any any coarse or heavy clothing is involved and creates an explosive cavity via hydraulic cavitation when entering soft tissue...and applies the brakes so as not to over penetrate thus minimizing collateral damage. YES, I call that a "GAME CHANGER".
Unfortunately, I don't share your enthusiasm for this particular new technology... I'll stick with (and very highly recommend) HSTs and Gold Dots.
What he said...I know tests are just that but the 'tests', when 'tested' with other types pf ammo, with the same, small, handgun with a short barrel, same conditions, same barriers, clothes, etc...they do VERY well..TONS of videos testing the 'Lehigh' type..
Yep! Me too!
The 9mm Ammo Quest series of videos (which includes bare gelatin and 'denim' testing) is some of the the best and most comprehensive comparative testing readily available to the general public.
9mm Ammo Quest
Also, note that the FBI Penetration Test criteria (post #20) does not include ballistic gelatin damage caused by 'cavitation'... the criteria includes simply 'penetration depth'.
'Cavitation' and the damage associated therewith has been studied for decades by the military and law enforcement and has been debunked for service/self-defense cartridges.
Contrary to 'Internet wisdom', the 'cavitation' demonstrated by ballistic gelatin is a characteristic of the gelatin and NOT a characteristic of the human body.
The first 'hint' indicating as such is the calibration depth of the BB... which is 2.95" to 3.74" (with a 0.177” steel BB @ 590 +/- 15 fps).
A 0.177" steel BB @ 600 fps simply doesn't penetrate the human body (or a pork loin ) to near that depth.
The FBI considers the 'dependable' damage caused by the bullet to be the 'crush' cavity produced by the bullet's diameter... no more... no less.
"We’re looking for 12-18" penetration, uniform penetration, high bullet weight retention and 1.5 times caliber expansion."
HORNADY’S CRITICAL DUTY AMMO
For those interested in further study, peruse the works of...
Duncan MacPherson, including...
Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma
International Wound Ballistics Association
Enjoy the videos.
You aren't going to get very far here, or many other places trying to inject logic into an ammo discussion.
Gel is a great medium, the people who do testing for a living know what the data means. It isn't a 1:1 comparison, it doesn't show tissue damage, other than the permanent cavity (that is even subjective) , and a pistol round just won't do what a rifle round will. The magic number seems to be about the 2200 FPS mark for temporary cavitation to start making it's presence known. So, anything under 2200 fps has to be touched by the projectile for damage to occur, and the better at slicing, cutting and tearing, the better.
You want to see what they do? Cadaver studies. They happen and you will never see it on the interwebs, or even talked about often, for a number of reasons, but don't think they haven't been done to nauseum and the comparisons aren't over documented, measured and compared.
That is how they know that XXX in gel = YYY in a live target.
It’s as bad as caliber debate, lol!!
Yep! I understand... I'm just doing the best I can for those willing to be objective.
We all know that caliber and ammo are the 2 most hotly debated questions. I feel that it really depends on the individual, environment, and intended use of said caliber and ammo. For instance myself, I'm approaching my later 60's and disabled. That in itself puts me at a disadvantage for larger framed pistols and calibers. So for me my Ruger LCP with Underwood Extreme defenders is the perfect carry for me. It all depends on what your going to be asking out of pistol and ammo.
Individual results vary...........
This is like discussing one's favorite cigar!
I agree. I carry a Sig P365..that is a 9mm "Get off me" gun for close range work. I don't see myself in a protracted gun fight. I want a round that's going to penetrate my assailant, do some damage to stop the threat and not pass thru to the person behind them.
That one can result in bans.
The Ammo Quest tests were a big part of my reason for changing my 380 pocket-gun ammo a few years ago. Initially I carried fmj because my previous pocket gun was a 32acp and would sometimes rimlock with anything shorter than fmj stuff. After a while I switched to remington's 102-grain JHP in the 380, figuring that if they expanded, great; and if they didn't expand & acted like the FMJ, at least I was carrying the heaviest bullet available in the caliber. But in the ammo quest tests, not only did they fail to expand, but they hugely underpenetrated at the same time. Multi-fail all the way around.
I switched to XTP's for 380 (usually Fiocchi-loaded, sometimes Hornady), and am happy knowing that I may be carrying about as good a load as this poor caliber can wrangle. "Best of a bad situation" imo, when counting on this small a caliber out of that small a gun.
Personally, I think Underwood's Xtreme Defender and Xtreme Penetrator cartridges are good considerations for the .380 Auto.
My only question was which one actually performs better with barriers (post #25).
After viewing the video Lucian posted (380 Auto 90gr Xtreme Penetrator Ammunition, post #30), I'd select the 90 gr Xtreme Penetrator... simply because, by the very nature of the bullet designs, the Penetrator bullet should penetrate 'better' and its denim test results just barely met the FBI 12" minimum, implying that the 68 gr Defender bullet may (will?) fail... which answers my question.